I just saw a picture of the President of the Palestinian Authority handing a bid for statehood to the head of the UN , and a light went on in my head. Didn't the UN already grant statehood to the Palestinians in 1948 covering even more territory? As I recall the Palestinians rejected it.
Further from 1948 to 1967, didn't two Arab countries control the very territory the Palestinians now want for their state? What happened to the Palestinian state during that time?
Yes, I know many will say the past is irrelevant, but I still believe it is a very relevant factor in understanding the complete situation which most people today either aren't even aware or have forgotten or have chosen to ignore.
Eric
From the New York Times:
ReplyDeleteThe general point of view of the Israeli government and its supporters is that the Palestinians and their Arab allies gave up the right to the United Nations resolutions detailing a two state solution by rejecting that original plan and waging war against Israel for six decades.
But after every war, the United Nations resolutions and indeed the peace treaties with other Arab states have all reaffirmed the resolutions that outline the two-state compromise, starting with General Assembly resolution 181 in 1947. In the annex of their membership application submitted to Mr. Ban today, the Palestinians listed every United Nations resolution that envisioned a two-state solution that has not been implemented, they said.
I have this nagging feeling that Israel and the US are missing another opportunity combined with a nagging hope that maybe they are not. Maybe Obama is leading from behind again, which is the only place he can lead from in the Mideast these days. What I mean is that the Palestinians by asking to be made subject to the UN Charter are stating their willingness to agree to the legitimacy of Israel as a state, secure in its borders, without the double-talk that Arabs often engage in on that issue, and they are committing that they will never invade or violate the sovereignty of that state. No, not a Jewish state and which borders still remains the key issue, and the right-of-return issue is still there, but it does seem to me that a key milestone has been passed. And the overwhelming and strong support for Abbas's application to the UN must strengthen him as compared to Hamas in the Gaza, which has never come close to acknowledging the legitimacy of the state of Israel or its right to be secure in any borders, even the 1967 borders. So shouldn't Israel and the US be trying to build on the concessions Abbas has made and further marginalize Hamas and Iran by aggressively moving on the Israeli side to a 2 state solution? Unfortunately, that means finally confronting the settlements and the Israeli right wing. I do not believe that Netanyahu will ever do that and Obama does not have the clout to make him, thanks largely to the American right and Netanyahu's American enablers. And if this opportunity is missed, and the Palestinians come to see Abbas as ineffective, that will only strengthen Hamas and Iran and increase the risk from the new Egypt and the soon-to-be new Syria. On the positive side, the New York Times article was mostly about the Quartet nations' renewed efforts, which is where Obama leading from behind may come in. But I still think there has to be a regime change in Israel, the sooner the better.
I'm not buying the NYT no rejection of UN resolution thing. We all went to law school and I know a rejection of an offer when I see one. It also doesn't explain what didn't happen between 1948 and 1967. Beside I've read the resolution and it calls for a Jewish state, so if your right I guess that's settled.
ReplyDeleteAs to your broader point, not only do I agree with it, but I'll go you one better. This whole UN bid in defiance of Israel and the US will only strengthen Abbas at Hamas' expense. He will now have the bona fides to make a deal with Israel. It's all part of a grand plan and Israel and the US know this and have basically been playing their parts.
A deal has already been worked out with Olmert and Barad. Borders after land swaps have been agreed to. Those relatively few settlers outside the new Israel borders will be free to stay as citizens of Palestine or leave and go back into Israel if they choose. Jerusalem already is basically divided East and West, so each can be it's own capital, and the Old City will be shared. The Jewish and Palestinian refugees ( roughly equal in numbers people forget ) will receive compensation. They will rename the refugee camps towns, villages , or cities ( which is what they are-- no tents in sight) and the the refugees in Lebanon and Syria can resettle in Palestine
The only thing lacking is courage on the Palestinian side. With Abbas' new found stature after going to the UN, he may now to say yes where Arafat couldn't or wouldn't.
Israel may have to form a unity government ( that's what regime change is in a democracy) to cut out the crazies. Kind of like the moderate Republicans joining with the Democrats to outvote the Tea Party( probably more unlikely).
So you see it all a part of a grand plan. Keep hope alive.
Eric